- Original Message -
From: "Sean Chittenden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Andrew Dunstan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 7:59 PM
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] pg_ctl r
Sean Chittenden wrote:
> > > We can also try to come up with a better scheme for verifying that
> > > we have started properly - I will think about that.
> >
> > There have been previous suggestions for a "pg_ping" functionality,
> > in which you could simply send a packet to the postmaster and it
> > We can also try to come up with a better scheme for verifying that
> > we have started properly - I will think about that.
>
> There have been previous suggestions for a "pg_ping" functionality,
> in which you could simply send a packet to the postmaster and it
> would answer back if it's open
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:22:32 -0500, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>The low-tech solution to this would be to stop listing the default
>values as commented-out entries, but just make them ordinary uncommented
>entries.
Please not. How should we ask a newbie seeking assistance on one of
the s
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
We can also try to come up with a better scheme for verifying that we
have started properly - I will think about that.
There have been previous suggestions for a "pg_ping" functionality, in
which you could simply send a packet to
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We can also try to come up with a better scheme for verifying that we
> have started properly - I will think about that.
There have been previous suggestions for a "pg_ping" functionality, in
which you could simply send a packet to the postmaster and i
Christopher Kings-Lynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> The latter...why won't it affect the postmaster state?
>>
>> Because it's a *comment*.
> Shouldn't it revert to the default value?
No, not unless you think the postmaster should react to comments in the
postgresql.conf file, which is rather
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Tom Lane writes:
I also wonder why -w isn't the default.
Because it is not sufficiently reliable in start mode. See
source code and archives.
I think we can improve -w, though. Here's what the code says about the
section where it tries to use psql to determine
Tom Lane writes:
> I also wonder why -w isn't the default.
Because it is not sufficiently reliable in start mode. See
source code and archives.
--
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 8: explain analyze is your frie
Bruce Momjian wrote:
OK, I updated the Win32 web page to mention we need a C version of
pg_ctl. I don't think we will need pg_config once we have initdb in C,
and I don't think it is worth doing initlocation because we need
tablespaces.
I will put it on my todo list (should be simpler than initdb
Tom Lane wrote:
> Tommi Maekitalo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I installed 7.4beta5, created a data-dir and tried to start postgresql with
> > pg_ctl without initdb. As expected, this will fail. But pg_ctl tells me
> > "postmaster successfully started", after a fatal error, which looks very
>
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
> >Tommi Maekitalo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >
> >>I installed 7.4beta5, created a data-dir and tried to start postgresql with
> >>pg_ctl without initdb. As expected, this will fail. But pg_ctl tells me
> >>"postmaster successfully started", af
The latter...why won't it affect the postmaster state?
Because it's a *comment*.
Shouldn't it revert to the default value?
Chris
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail
Christopher Kings-Lynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> By "disable" do you mean "turn off", or "comment out again"? The latter
>> is not going to affect the state of the postmaster ...
> The latter...why won't it affect the postmaster state?
Because it's a *comment*.
reg
By "disable" do you mean "turn off", or "comment out again"? The latter
is not going to affect the state of the postmaster ...
The latter...why won't it affect the postmaster state?
Chris
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: Have you searched our list
Christopher Kings-Lynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've also noticed that on our production 7.3.4 server logging to syslog,
> that if I change the postgresql.conf to enable log_statement, and then
> do pg_ctl reload, it works, but then when I disable it again, pg_ctl
> reload does not cause p
Tom Lane wrote:
Tommi Maekitalo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I installed 7.4beta5, created a data-dir and tried to start postgresql with
pg_ctl without initdb. As expected, this will fail. But pg_ctl tells me
"postmaster successfully started", after a fatal error, which looks very
confusing.
If you don't use -w, then pg_ctl doesn't wait around to see whether the
postmaster started or not. It'd probably be a good idea for it to issue
a less positive message in this case, maybe only "postmaster launched".
I also wonder why -w isn't the default.
I've also noticed that on our production 7
Tommi Maekitalo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I installed 7.4beta5, created a data-dir and tried to start postgresql with
> pg_ctl without initdb. As expected, this will fail. But pg_ctl tells me
> "postmaster successfully started", after a fatal error, which looks very
> confusing. When I use -
Hi,
I installed 7.4beta5, created a data-dir and tried to start postgresql with
pg_ctl without initdb. As expected, this will fail. But pg_ctl tells me
"postmaster successfully started", after a fatal error, which looks very
confusing. When I use -l for specifying a logfile, I don't even see th
20 matches
Mail list logo
